ey^  *wi 

Y 


LIB 

OF  THE 

U  N  IVLRSITY 
OF    ILLINOIS 


^*a 


vXy  /aB&V  y 

m?W- 

3*35       S^\^      nJJ±J 


-       "A 


^y^^^jg^ 

m  A^:*^:%iC        ffi 


nkfe>  1 


f£m$m 


m 


:»3*m. 


i*,«r,«  ari  •  t>  B  * 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


URBANA,  NOVEMBER,  1901. 


BULLETIN  No   66. 


INDIVIDUAL  DIFFERENCES  IN  THE   VALUE    OF 

DAIRY    COWS. 


BY  WILBER  J.  FRASER,  INSTRUCTOR  IN  DAIRY  HUSBANDRY,  COLLEGE  OF 

AGRICULTURE  AND  CHIEF  IN  DEPARTMENT  OF  DAIRY  HUSBANDRY, 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION. 


Common  observation  teaches  us  that  different  cows  produce 
different  amounts  of  milk  and  butter-fat  in  the  same  period  of  time, 
but  it  does  not  inform  us  whether  the  food  consumption  differs  in 
proportion  to  yield,  or  whether  one  cow  may  actually  manufacture 
more  than  another  out  of  the  same  amount  of  feed.  The  question 
then  arises,  will  two  cows  fed  on  like  feeds  make  the  same  returns, 
and,  if  not,  will  the  yield  be  in  the  ratio  of  the  feeds  consumed. 
It  was  to  determine  this  question  that  the  experiment  here  de- 
scribed was  conducted  and  the  conclusion  may  be  found  on  page  102. 

In  experiments  of  this  character  the  mistake  is  frequently 
made  of  comparing-  beef  cows,  or  cows  with  beef  tendencies,  with 
dairy  cows,  for  dairy  purposes  alone.  This  is  unfair  to  the  beef 
cow,  for  both  she  and  her  offspring  are  valuable  for  other  purposes 
than  simply  the  production  of  milk.  The  cows  used  in  the 
experiment  here  reported  were  equally  of  little  value  for  beef  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  cuts  on  pages  98  and  99. 

95 


BULLETIN  NO.  66. 


[November, 


TAHI-B  1.    WEEKLY  CONSUMPTION  OF  FEKD  AND  YIELD  OF  MILK  AND  BUTTER-FAT  IN  POUNDS 
FOR  THE  TWO  COWS  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 


1899-1900. 

Rose. 

Nora. 

Rose. 

Nora. 

Week 
ending' 

Grain. 

Hay. 

0 
n 

%  » 

fe   — 

r 

Grain. 

Hay. 

O 

S'tt 
2  n> 
rc>  H 
p.B 

Lb. 
milk. 

o-^ 

-t>C   ft 
«-*•  n 

n>  o 

*-t  *"*• 

0* 

^£r< 
ff? 
I 

Lb. 
milk. 

cr>rj 

-hS  g 

as3 
•*<?  o 

i-l   r» 

0* 

-hC   |H 

*f? 

From  April  13 
April  17  
April  24 

61.6 

107.7 
107.7 
107.7 
107.7 

107.7 
107.0 
112.0 
112.0 
112.0 

112.0 
112.0 
112.0 
112.0 
112.0 

112.0 
112.0 
112.0 
112.0 
112.0 

112.0 

112.0 
112.0 
112.0 
104.0 

112.0 
112.0 
112.0 
112.0 
104.0 

84.0 
84.0 
84.0 
84.0 
84.0 

80.0 
70.0 
70.0 
76.0 
84.0 

84.0 
84.0 
79.0 
70.0 
70.0 

70.0 
70.C 
70.C 
70.C 
70.C 

70. 
70. 
40. 

64.1 

112.2 
112.2 
112.2 
112.2 

112.2 
107.0 
112.0 
112.0 
112.0 

100.0 
910 
88.0 
84.0 
84.0 

84.0 
84.0 
84.0 
84.0 
84.0 

84.0 
90.0 
84.0 
84.0 
84.0 

96.0 
840 
84.0 
84.0 
76.0 

56.0 
56.0 
560 
56.0 
50.0 

4.0 
0.0 
6.0 
51.0 
56.0 

53.5 
52.5 
550 
56.0 
56.0 

56.0 
56.0 
56.C 
56.C 
56.C 

56.C 
56.( 
32.( 

156.4 
290.4 

285.0 

4.5 
4.8 

5.5 

7.04 
13.94 
15.68 

May  1 

May  8     

"'•106.0 

112.0 
112.0 
112.0 

112.0 

112.0 
122.0 
112.0 
112.0 

112.0 
112.0 
112.0 
112.0 
112.0 

112.0 
1120 
112.0 
112.0 
112.0 

112.0 
112.0 
T120 
112.0 
104.0 

84.0 
84.0 
84.0 
84.0 
78.0 

62.0 
70.0 
70.0 
76.0 
84.0 

84.0 
84.0 
790 
70.0 
70.0 

70.0 
70.0 
70.C 
70.C 
70.C 

51  .C 
70.( 

'167.0 

112.0 
112.0 
112.0 

100.0 
91.0 
88.0 
84.0 
84.0 

84.0 
84.0 
84.0 
84.0 
84.0 

84.0 
90.0 
84.0 
84.0 
84.0 

96.0 
84.0 
84.0 
84.0 
76.0 

56.0 
49.0 
36.0 
32.0 
36.5 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
26.0 
42.0 

23.5 
27.5 
45.C 
56.C 
56C 

38.C 
37.; 
45.( 
46.( 
46i 

40.( 
56.1 

274.0 
311.0 

317.0 
304.5 
315.7 
284.6 
312.7 

294.2 
296.2 
294.1 
289.5 
299.6 

264.2 
267.1 
284.3 
284.2 
264.1 

261.6 
246.7 
252.9 
237.3 
222.2 

213.6 
208.7 
212.0 
205.9 
193.5 

199.3 
202.5 
187.7 
178.0 
155. 

165.0 
153. 
116. 
137. 
142. 

153. 
142. 
135. 
145. 
143. 

139. 
154. 
134- 
127 
127. 

129. 
135. 
79 

5.4 

5.2 

5.2 
5.1 
4.8 
4.8 
4.2 

4,2 
3.9 
4.1 
4.2 
4.3 

4.4 
4.4 
4.5 
4.5 
4.6 

4.9 
5.1 
4.6 
5.1 

5.8 

5.4 
5.7 
5.2 
5.0 

5.5 

5.2 
5.6 

5. 
5. 
5. 

5. 
5. 
5. 
5. 
5. 

5. 

5. 
5. 

5. 

5. 

5. 
5. 
5. 
5. 
6. 

6. 
6. 
6. 

14.80 
16.17 

16.48 
15.53 
15.15 
13.66 
13.13 

12.36 
11.55 
12.06 
12.16 
12.88 

11.62 

11.75 
12.79 
12.79 
12.15 

12.82 
12.58 
11.63 
12.10 

12.88 

11.53 
11.89 
11.02 
10.29 
10.64 

10.36 
11.34 
9.57 
9.08 
7,91 

8.42 
7.96 
6.31 
7.40 
7.42 

7.98 
7.71 
7.30 
7.56 
8.06 

7.54 
8.65 
7.81 
6.88 

7.7' 

7.75 
8.12 
4.85 

198.6 
218.0 
221.8 
217.9 

213.1 
203.9 
216.5 
216.6 
217.8 

221.4 

225.0 
211,8 
218.3 
203.7 

196.1 

191.2 
191.9 
181.5 
176.0 

166.8 
159.9 
159.4 
151.6 
143.6 

152.4 
151.0 
125.2 
132.6 
134.4 

94  1 
107.2 
97.2 
109.4 
114.7 

110.7 
104.4 
107.2 
105.5 
113.6 

101.1 
94.? 
110.1 
106.1 

102.: 

90.1 
99.1 

""3.3 

3.3 

3,3 
3.3 

3.4 
3.4 
3.2 
3.2 
3.4 

3.5 
3.4 
3.7 
3.7 
3.7 

3.8 
3.9 
3.6 
3.8 
4.1 

4.1 
4.4 

4.2 
4.0 
4.2 

4.2 
4.0 
4.1 
4.1 
4.1 

4.1 
4.5 
4.6 
4.2 

4.3 

3.9 
4.4 
4.2 
4.1 
4.2 

4.1 
4.4 
4.4 
4.4 

4.: 

4.C 

4.: 

'"6.55 
7.19 
7.32 
7.19 

7.25 
6.93 
6.92 
6.93 
7.40 

7.75 
7.65 
7.84 
8.08 
7.54 

7.45 
7.46 
6.91 
6.90 
7.22 

6.84 

7.03 
6.69 
6.06 
6.03 

6.40 
6.04 
5.13 
5.44 
5.51 

3.86 
4.82 
4.47 
4.59 
4.93 

4.32 
4.59 
4.50 
4.32 
4.77 

4.14 
4.17 
4.84 
4.66 
4.40 

3.60 
4.26 

May  15  
May  22 

May  29.  

Jnne  12  
June  19  

108.0 
209.0 
245.0 
280.0 
280.0 

280.0 
280,0 
280.0 
280.0 
240.0 

2100 
210.0 
210.0 
210.0 
240.0 

90.0 
210.0 
210.0 
210.0 
230.0 

280.0 
280.0 
280.0 
280.0 
280.0 

399.0 
465.0 
438.5 
325.0 
280.0 

280.0 
280.0 
280.0 
280.0 
280.0 

280.0 
280.0 
280.0 
280.0 
280.0 

280.C 
280.C 
160.C 

108 
209 
245 
280 
280 

280 
280 
280 
280 
240 

210 

210 
210 
210 
240 

SO 
210 
210 
210 
230 

280 
280 
280 
280 
280 

385 
461 
427 
325 
280 

280 
!   280 
280 
280 
280 

280 
280 

.   280 
280 
>    280 

)    200 
)    280 

July    3  
July  10     

July  17 

July  24     

July  31 

August    7  
August  14  
August  21  
August  28  

September  4. 
September  11.. 
September  18 
September  25.. 
October  2  

October  9  
October  16  
October  23  .... 
October  30  
November  6... 

November  13.. 
November  20_ 
November  27.. 
December    4  - 
December  11  _ 

December  18  .. 
December  25  . 
January    1  — 
January    8-... 
January  15  

January  22... 
January  29... 
Februao'   5. 
February  12 
February  19. 

February  26. 
March    5  
March  12-.... 
March  19  
March  26  

April    2  
April    9  
April  13  
April  16 

70.( 
70.( 

70.( 
70.( 
70 
80. 

51  .( 
100.( 

106. 
112. 
104. 
120. 

)    244 

98.S 

4.: 

4.' 
4.' 

4.: 

3.. 
4.( 

4.25 
\      3.91 

^      3.84 
!      4.23 
5      3.37 
)      4.15 

April  23 

88.( 

87.' 
98.. 

April  30 

)  

May  14 

96.' 
103.S 

May  22 

)  

Total     . 

1132 

564.8 

7759. 

298.64 

INDIVIDUAL  DIFFERENCES  OF  DAIRY  COWS.  97 

DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  Cows. 

Two  cows  named  Rose  and  Nora  were  selected  for  the  experi- 
ment. They  were  both  grade  cows  of  no  known  breeding"  and 
nearly  solid  red  in  color.  Rose  was  nine  years  old  and  was  fresh 
April  10,  1899.  Nora  was  six  years  old  and  was  fresh  May  19, 
1899. 

METHOD  OF  CONDUCTING  THE  EXPERIMENT. 

Rose,  the  better  cow,  was  fresh  thirty-nine  days  before  Nora 
and  the  record  of  each  was  commenced  three  days  after  calving 
and  continued  one  year.  The  two  cows  were  fed  exactly  the  same 
kinds  of  feed  and  in  the  same  proportions,  with  the  exception  of  a 
very  slight  difference  during  the  time  they  were  not  both  giving 
milk,  as  may  be  noted  in  Table  I,  which  was  the  first  thirty-nine 
days  of  Rose's  lactation  period  and  the  last  thirty-nine  days  of 
Nora's.  Any  other  slight  difference  in  feed  comes  from  a  small 
amount  being  left  uneaten  and  weighed  back.  They  were  not 
crowded  at  any  time,  being  fed  only  twice  a  day.  For  a  time  it 
was  impossible  to  get  a  very  good  quality  of  clover  hay  and  occa- 
sionally some  was  left  uneaten  which,  after  becoming  thoroughly 
dried  of  any  moisture  that  might  have  collected  on  it  during  feed- 
ing, was  weighed  and  subtracted  from  the  amount  fed.  The  cows 
received  like  treatment  in  every  respect,  standing  during  the 
winter  in  stalls  side  by  side  and  in  suitable  weather  being  turned 
each  day  into  a  yard.  During  the  summer  they  had  access  to  a 
shady  yard,  always  being  tied  in  their  stalls  at  feeding  time  in 
order  that  the  amount  each  consumed  could  be  accurately  deter- 
mined. They  were  milked  at  regular  intervals  each  day  and 
always  by  the  same  milker.  The  weight  of  each  milking  was  re- 
corded and  a  sample  taken  with  a  Scovell  sampling  tube,  which  re- 
moves an  aliquot  part  from  each  milking,  The  samples  thus 
taken  were  put  into  glass  jars  each  bearing  the  respective  cow's 
name  and  containing  a  small  quantity  of  potassium  bi-chromate  to 
prevent  the  milk  from  souring.  At  the  close  of  the  week  the  jar 
for  each  cow  had  received  a  sample  of  every  milking  and  the  com- 
position of  this  composite  sample  represented  the  average  compo- 
sition of  the  milk  given  by  that  cow  for  the  week.  The  composite 
samples  were  tested  in  duplicate  for  butter-fat  by  the  Babcock  test 
and  the  total  weight  of  milk  for  the  week  was  multiplied  by  the 
per  cent,  of  butter-fat  in  the  composite  sample  which  gives  the 
weekly  yield  of  butter-fat  for  each  cow. 

The  complete  data  for  each  week  as  to  feeds  consumed,  and 
milk  and  butter-fat  produced,  are  given  in  Table  I. 


BULLETIN  NO.  66. 


[November, 


ROSE. 


ROSE. 


IQOI. 


INDIVIDUAL  DIFFERENCES  OF  DAIRY  COWS. 

THE  FEED. 


99 


The  ration  was  composed  of  hay,  green  feed,  and  ground  feed. 
The  hay  was  a  fair  quality  of  clover.  The  green  feed  was 
chang-ed  from  time  to  time  as  the  season  required.  The  concen- 
trates consisted  of  a  mixture  of  several  different  kinds  of  ground 
feed.  The  percentage  of  each  in  the  mixture  and  the  length  of 
time  each  mixture  was  fed  are  given  in  the  table  below. 


NORA. 


TABLE  2.    PERCENTAGE  COMPOSITION  OF  GRAIN  RATION  FOR  DIFFERENT 

PERIODS  BY  WEIGHT. 


1899  and  1900 

Corn 
meal 

Gluten 
meal 

Wheat 
bran 

Ground 
oats 

Oil 
meal 

April  13,  to  November  6  

7-Ji 

^•U 

i6§ 

i6| 

November  6.  to  February  5..  . 

Alis 

•m 

2C 

February  5,  to  April  13  

25 

25 

2? 

1  84 

64 

April  n,  to  May  22.  . 

44* 

171 

26? 

Hi 

The  green  feed  consisted  of  rape  until  August  28th,  green 
corn  until  September  llth,  cowpeas  until  October  9th,  and  then 
corn  silage  for  the  remainder  of  the  experiment. 


IOO 


BULLETIN  NO.  66. 


[November, 


TABLE  3.    AMOUNT  IN  POUNDS  OF  EACH  KIND  OF  FEED  CONSUMED  FOR  THE 

PERIOD  GIVEN. 
ROSE. 


Date  for  each 
period 

Cloverhay 

Corn 
silage 
and 
green 
corn 

O 

"-t 
n> 

<T> 

3 
•-I 

pi 
T3 

n 

Green 
co.wpeas 

n 

o 

"1 

3 
n 

EJ 

3 

p* 
n 
ta 

cr^- 
-t 

EU 

3 

Oats 

O 
c 

-  n 

3  3 
o> 

5J 

Linseed 
meal  O.  P. 

Apr.  13  to  May  22 
May  22  to  Nov.  6 
Nov.  6  to  Feb.  5 
Feb.  5  to  Apr.  13 

625.1 
2160. 

552. 
536. 

200. 
889. 
436   2 

2OO. 
889. 

IOO. 

444-5 

IOO. 

444-5 
261  .7 
41.8 

1280. 

4H7-5 
2680. 

2482 

750 

349- 

167.5 

167.5 

167.5 

125.6 

3873-1 

8107.5 

2482 

750. 

1692.7 

1256.5 

670.1 

516.5 

848.0 

NORA. 


Date  for  each 
period 

Cloverhay 

Corn 
silage 
and 
green 
corn 

O 
i 
.     n> 
t» 
P 

3 

13 
<T> 

Green 
cowpeas 

n 

0 

3 

3 
r» 
P 

3 

sr 
n 
w 

gr« 

3 
P 

Oats 

O 

c 
n 

B  3 
a 

w_ 

Linseed 
meal  O.  P. 

May  22  to  Nov.  6 
Nov.  6  to  Feb.  5 
Feb.  5  to  Apr.  13 
Apr.  13  to  May  22 

2160. 

373-5 
450. 

564- 

1280. 
4118. 
2579.4 
104.6 

2482. 

750. 

891.3 
426.2 

891.3 

445.6 

445.6 

255-7 
40.7 

43-3 

341. 

162.7 

69.3 

162.7 
173-3 

162.7 
104. 

122. 

3547-5 

8082.0 

2482. 

750. 

1653-5 

1158.0  567.6 

573-o 

785-3 

THE  AMOUNT  IN  POUNDS  WHICH  ROSE  CONSUMED  MORE  THAN  NORA. 


n 

Corn 

O 

n 

n 

<; 

0 

P  t~* 

§ 

n 

silage 
and 

n> 
n> 

o 

73 

o 

3 

B* 

Ol 

p 

Oats 

c 

•Li 

rc 

33 

cr 

green 

tu 

n 

«> 

3 

n 

y  a- 

corn 

n 

£L 

3 

SL 

•^ 

325.6 

25-5 

39-2 

98.5 

102  .  5 

-56.5 

62.7 

INDIVIDUAL  DIFFERENCES   OF  DAIRY  COWS. 


101 


TABLE  4.    AMOUNT  OF  DIFFERENT  CLASSES  OF  DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS  CON- 
SUMED  IN  EACH   KIND   OF   FEED   FOR  BOTH   COWS. 

ROSE. 


Feed 

Pounds 

Pounds 
dry 
matter 

Pounds   digestible 

Pounds 
total 
digestible 
dry 
matter 

Protein 

Carbohydrates 

Fat 

Clover    hay  

3873-I 
8107.5 
2482. 
750. 
1692.7 
1256.5 
670.  i 

&t'S 
048. 

3280.52 
1694.47 
347-48 
123. 

I5I3-27 
noi  .95 

596.39 
474-15 
769.98 

263.37 
.    72-97 
37-23 
I3-50 
132-03 

JI415 
61.65 

133.26 
248  .  46 

1386.57 
916.15 

2OI  .04 
65.25 
1129.03 

466.  16 
316.96 
223.64 
277.29 

65.84 
56.75 
4-96 
1.50 
72.78 
32-67 
28.14 
56.81 
59.36 

1715.78 
1045.87 

243-23 
80.25 

I333-84 
653.38 
406.75 

4I3-7I 
585.11 

Silage  and  green  corn 
Rape  

Green  cowpeas  

Corn  meal  

Wheat  bran.  . 

Oats  

Gluten  meal  

Linseed  meal  O.  P  

20196.4 

99OI  .21 

1117.02 

4982.09 

378.81 

6477-92 

NORA. 


Feed 

Pounds 

Pounds 
dry 
matter 

Pounds    digestible 

Pounds 
total 
digestible 
dry 
matter 

Protein 

Carbohydrates 

Fat 

Clover  hay  

3547-5 
8082. 
2482. 
750. 

i653-5 
1158. 

567-6 

573- 
'  785.3 

3004.73 
1689.  14 

347-48 
123. 
1478.23 
1015.57 
505.16 
526.01 
7I3-05 

241.23 
72-74 
37-23 
I3-50 
128.97 

142.43 

53-22 

147.83 

230.09 

1270. 
913.27 
201.04 

65-25 
1102.88 
429.62 
268.47 
248.  ii 
256-79 

60.31 
56.57 
4-96 
1.50 
71  .  10 
30.11 
23-84 
63-03 
54-97 

1571-54 
1042.58 

243-23 
80.25 
1302.95 
602.16 
345-53 
458.97 
541.85 

Silage  and  green  corn 
Rape.. 

„    "       
Green  cowpeas  

Corn  meal  

Wheat  bran  

Oats  

Gluten  meal  

Linseed  meal  O.  P  

19598.9:9402.37 

1067.24 

4755-43 

366.39 

6189.06 

DIFFERENCE  IN  THE  AMOUNTS  CONSUMED  BY  THE  TWO  Cows  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 


Pounds 

Pounds 

total 

Pounds 

dry 

Protein 

Carbohydrates 

Fat 

digestible 

matter 

dry 

matter 

597-5 

498.84 

49-78 

226.66 

12.41 

288.82 

As  the  object  of  the  experiment  was  the  comparison  of  the  two 
cows  and  as  they  were  fed  the  same  kinds  of  feed  and  each  cow 
consumed  practically  the  same  amount  of  each,  the  exact  chemical 
composition  of  the  feed  is  not  important  ;  hence  no  analyses  were 
made  but  those  given  in  the  standard  tables  in  Henry's  "Feeds 
and  Feeding-"  were  used. 


BULLETIN  NO.  66. 


[November,. 


In  order  to  facilitate  the  comparison,  as  the  ratios  of  the  differ- 
ent total  digestible  nutrients  in  the  feed  consumed  by  each  cow  are 
practically  the  same,  all  feed  was  reduced  to  the  basis  of  total 
digestible  nutrients  consumed. 

TABLE  5.    RECORD  OF  THE  Two  Cows  FOR  ONE  YEAR  COMPUTED  ON  A 

LIKE  FEED  BASIS. 


Rose 

Nora 

Difference 

Reduced  to  a  like  feed  basis  the  amount 
Nora  would  have  produced  had  she  eaten  the 
same  as  Rose. 

Total  digestible  dry  matter  consumed,  in  pounds.. 

6477.92 

6477.92 

Total  yield  of  milk  in  pounds  

1  1  ^2Q  .  OO 

8121  60 

•3207  4.0 

Total  yield  of  butter  fat,  in  pounds  

564.80 

^12.  $1 

2C2.27 

Total  yield  of  butter,  in  pounds  

6;8.qo 

364  62 

204   2& 

Total  value  of  butter  at  i6c.  per  pound  

Siot;.  AT. 

s;8.s4 

$47  OO 

Reduced  to  a  like  feed  basis,  for  every  100  Ib.  of  milk 
given  by  Nora,  Rose  gave  139.5  Ib.  and  for  every  100 
Ib.  of  butter-fat  produced  by  Nora,  Rose  produced 
180.7  Ib. 

COMPARATIVE  VALUE  OF  THE  Two  Cows. 

As  milk  is  nearly  always  valued  by  the  amount  of  butter-fat 
which  it  contains  and  Rose  produced  on  the  same  feed  basis  1.807 
times  as  much  butter-fat  as  Nora,  the  difference  in  yield  between 
the  two  cows  was  252.27  Ib.  of  butter-fat  or  294.31  Ib.  of  butter  per 
year.  This  at  16  cents  per  pound,  which  is  the  average  value  of 
butter  before  being-  made  up  would  amount  to  $47.09  per  year. 
Supposing-  that  the  cows  would  yield  in  this  ratio  for  six  years, 
from  the  age  of  four  to  ten,  which  is  a  conservative  estimate,  Rose 
would  produce  $282. 54  worth  of  butter  more  than  Nora  on  exactly 
the  same  kind  and  quantity  of  feed.  The  descendants  of  Rose  are 
also  of  vastly  more  value  than  those  of  Nora. 

In  this  comparison  Rose  was  at  a  disadvantage  in  two  ways. 
She  was  nine  years  of  age  and  on  the  down  grade  of  life  while 
Nora  was  just  in  her  prime.  Rose  was  bred  November  5,  1899t 
while  Nora  was  not  bred  until  after  the  experiment  closed.  Had 
it  not  been  for  these  two  hindrances  Rose  would  doubtless  have 
made  even  a  better  record  than  she  did. 

While  there  is  a  vast  difference  in  the  profit  derived  from  the 
two  cows  in  this  experiment  the  difference  is  by  no  means 
phenomenal,  as  greater  differences  than  here  cited  may  frequently 
be  found  among  cows  in  the  same  herd,  for  the  cow  Nora,  the 


IgOl.]  INDIVIDUAL  DIFFERENCES  OF  DAIRY  COWS.  IO3 

poorer  of  the  two,  was  in  reality  an  exceptionally  good  cow,  pro- 
ducing- 348.4  Ib.  of  butter  in  a  year  which  is  nearly  three  times  the 
average  yield  (130  Ib. )  of  cows  in  the  United  States  and  almost 
one-half  more  than  the  average  yield  (250  Ib. )  of  profitable  cows 
in  Illinois.  Had  Rose  been  compared  with  a  really  poor  cow,  such 
as  may  be  found  in  nearly  all  dairy  herds,  there  would  have  been 
a  much  greater  difference  in  profit  in  favor  of  Rose  ;  for  she  gave 
nearly  five  times  as  much  as  the  average  cow,  and  more  than  two 
and  one-half  times  as  much  as  a  profitable  cow  for  Illinois. 

While  Rose  is  an  exceptionally  good  cow  it  is  not  difficult  to 
find  those  which  will  produce  butter-fat  even  more  economically. 
For  example ;  in  a  thirty-two-day  test  with  Miss  Gypsy,  another 
cow  in  the  Station  herd,  both  being  thirty  days  from  calving,  fed 
on  like  feed  and  the  computation  being  on  the  same  feed  basis, 
when  Rose  yielded  1  Ib.  of  butter-fat  Miss  Gypsy  yielded  1.4  Ib. 
and  gained  during  this  period  over  100  Ib.  in  body  weight,  while 
Rose's  gain  was  but  slight.  When  Nora,  under  conditions  men- 
tioned, produced  1  Ib.  of  butter-fat  Miss  Gypsy  produced  2.44  Ib. 
on  the  same  feed. 

WEIGHT  OP  Cows. 

Cows  vary  in  weight  from  day  to  day  owing  to  variations  in 
the  amount  of  water  drunk  and  other  conditions.  The  cows  under 
experiment  were,  therefore,  weighed  monthly  on  each  of  five  con- 
secutive days,  the  last  two  of  one  month  and  the  first  three  of  the 
next,  and  the  average  of  these  five  weights  taken  as  the  correct 
weight  for  the  first  of  the  month.  From  August  first  to  April 
first  Rose  gained  181  Ib.  in  body  weight  while  Nora  gained  165  Ib. 
in  the  same  length  of  time,  or  16  Ib.  less  than  Rose,  showing  that 
Nora  did  not  utilize  her  feed  above  Rose  in  putting  on  body  gain. 

WHAT  BECAME  OF  THE  FOOD. 

As  before  mentioned  Rose  produced  1.8  Ib.  of  butter-fat  and 
1.39  Ib.  of  milk  for  every  pound  of  butter-fat  and  milk  given  by 
Nora  on  the  same  feed  and  with  no  more  body  gain.  The  import- 
ant question  then  arises,  what  did  Nora  do  with  this  extra  amount 
of  feed  which  she  consumed  ?  Several  answers  suggest  themselves. 
Either  Nora  used  up  a  larger  amount  of  food  in  nervous  energy,  or 
she  failed  to  digest  her  food  as  completely,  or  else  it  was  lack  in 
ability  of  the  glands  of  the  udder  to  elaborate  the  milk  from  the 
blood.  It  could  scarcely  be  the  first  as  they  were  both  quiet  cows  ; 
if  anything,  Nora  had  the  more  contented  disposition  of  the  two. 

To  have  determined   their  relative  efficiency  in  digesting  food 


104  BULLETIN  NO/66.  [November, 

would  have  necessitated  a  digestion  experiment  which  would  be  of 
great  value  in  this  connection,  but  which,  owing  to  lack  of  funds, 
it  was  impossible  to  conduct  at  the  time.  It  is  intended,  however, 
to  carry  on  such  an  experiment  during  the  coming  year. 

HAVE  A  PROFITABLE  STANDARD. 

A  prominent  dairy  authority  has  recently  said  :  "If  the  death 
angel  should  sweep  over  the  state  and  in  one  night  destroy  the 
poorest  third  of  all  the  cows  in  Illinois,  the  dairymen  would  awake 
the  next  morning-  financially  better  off."  Frequently  dairymen  are 
keeping  one-half  of  their  herd  at  an  actual  loss.  They  are  perhaps 
making  a  little  profit  on  the  whole  herd  and  are  thus  apparently 
satisfied,  whereas,  if  they  would  dispose  of  their  unprofitable  cows 
they  would  make  more  money  and  also  save  labor.  If  in  a  town 
having  two  grain  elevators,  one  paid  one-half  cent  a  bushel  more 
for  grain  than  the  other,  no  farmer  would  be  foolish  enough  to  sell 
his  grain  at  the  one  paying  the  lower  price.  Yet  dairymen  will 
persist  in  keeping  cows  year  after  year  that  are  paying  them  only 
twenty-five  cents  a  bushel  for  grain,  while  others  in  the  same  herd, 
or  that  can  easily  be  obtained  at  a  reasonable  price,  will  pay  fifty 
cents  a  bushel  or  even  more  for  the  grain  they  consume.  The  dif- 
ference in  price  which  individual  cows  are  paying  for  their  grain 
is  not  so  apparent  as  the  difference  at  the  elevators,  but  it  is  none 
the  less  actual  and  affects  the  pocket-book  just  as  surely  in  the  end. 

Every  dairyman  should  have  a  profitable  standard  of  produc- 
tion for  his  cows,  and  any  mature  cow  that  does  not  come  up  to 
this  standard  should  be  disposed  of  at  once.  What  this  profitable 
standard  is  each  must  determine  for  himself,  as  it  will  depend  upon 
the  cost  of  feed  and  care,  and  the  value  of  the  product  in  that  par- 
ticular locality.  This  standard  should  be  gradually  raised  each 
year  by  weeding  out  the  poorest  cows  and  breeding  only  from  the 
best.  The  only  way  this  can  be  done  intelligently  is  by  keeping  a 
record  of  each  individual  cow.  Generally  speaking,  cows  cannot 
be  kept  at  a  profit  in  Illinois  that  do  not  produce  the  equivalent  of 
250  Ibs.  of  butter  annually. 

KEEPING  RECORDS  OF  INDIVIDUAL  Cows. 

To  determine  exactly  what  a  cow  produces  in  a  year,  every 
milking  must  be  weighed  and  sampled,  but  if  the  herd  is  given  a 
one-week  test  every  three  months  it  will  be  sufficient  to  yield  val- 
uable results.  All  the  apparatus  necessary  for  this  purpose  is  a 
spring  balance,  as  many  common  glass  fruit  jars  as  there  are  cows 
in  the  herd,  and  a  four-bottle  Babcock  milk  tester.  The  latter  can 


I9oi.]  INDIVIDUAL  DIFFERENCES   OF  DAIRY  COWS.  10$ 

be  purchased  from  any  creamery  supply  house  complete  for  four 
dollars.  A  set  of  directions  accompanies  the  tester,  and  by  follow- 
ing1 these  any  intelligent  person  can  operate  the  test.  The  milk 
may  be  weig-hed  on  any  scale,  but  a  spring  balance  is  the  most  con- 
venient. The  scale  should  be  so  adjusted  that  it  will  balance  the 
empty  milk  pail  with  the  hand  at  zero  as  shown  in  the  cut. 
The  weight  of  the  milk  may  then  be  read  directly  from  the 
scale  without  subtracting  the  weight  of  the  pail  and  maybe  quickly 


SCALE  FOR  WEIGHING  MILK.    RECORD  SHEET  AND  COMPOSITE  SAMPLES. 

recorded  opposite  the  cow's  name  on  the  milk  sheet  provided  for 
the  purpose  and  placed  on  the  wall  convenient  to  the  scale.  A 
sample  should  then  be  taken  by  means  of  a  small  dipper  holding 
about  two  tablespoonfuls  and  placed  in  the  jar  bearing  the  cow's 
name  or  number.  A  cartridge  shell  of  the  proper  size,  with  a  wire 
attached  for  a  handle,  makes  a  very  convenient  dipper  for  this  pur- 
pose. If  things  are  conveniently  arranged  this  can  all  be  accom- 
plished very  quickly.  To  prevent  the  milk  from  souring  until  the 
end  of  the  week,  to  each  glass  jar  should  be  added  as  much  pulver- 
ized potassium  bi-chromate  as  will  lie  on  a  one  cent  piece.  Potas- 


io6  BULLETIN  NO.  66.  [Arovemberr 

slum  bi-chromate  may  be  obtained  at  any  drug-  store,  and,  although 
a  rank  poison,  is  one  of  the  best  preservatives  to  use  for  this  pur- 
pose for  the  reason  that  it  imparts  a  lemon  color  to  the  milk,  thu* 
making  it  easy  of  detection  and  obviating1  the  possible  mistake  of 
feeding  it  to  calves  or  pigs. 

At  the  end  of  the  week  the  composite  samples  in  the  jars  are 
tested  with  the  Babcock  milk  test  to  determine  the  per  cent,  of 
butter-fat.  This  gives  the  average  amount  of  butter-fat  contained 
in  each  cow's  milk  for  the  week.  The  total  weight  of  the  milk  for 
the  week,  multiplied  by  the  per  cent,  of  butter-fat,  gives  the  total 
butter-fat  produced  by  that  cow  for  the  week. 

This  test  should  be  made  every  three  months,  or  thirteen  weeks, 
and  in  computing  the  yield  of  the  cow  for  the  three  months  the  six 
weeks  previous  to  and  the  six  weeks  following  the  test  should  be 
taken,  for  obvious  reasons,  and  not  the  three  months  before  or  the 
three  months  after.  Even  if  the  cow  is  shrinking  in  flow  the  week 
in  the  middle  of  the  three  months  will  fairly  represent  her  average 
yield  for  that  period. 

After  a  fair  trial  all  mature  cows  that  do  not  come  up  to  a 
profitable  standard  should  be  disposed  of  at  once.  A  heifer  may 
not  do  well  with  her  first  calf,  but  if  she  is  "a.  promising  individual 
in  other  respects  she  should  still  be  retained.  If,  however,  she  is  a 
poor  producer  during  her  second  lactation  period,  she  should  be  kept 
no  longer. 

After  the  cows  have  been  tested  for  a  year  and  the  best  ones 
determined,  these  should  be  bred  to  a  sire  of  some  dairy  breed,  one 
that  is  both  an  excellent  individual  and  whose  female  ancestors  for 
several  generations  have  been  large  producers.  In  no  class  of  ani- 
mals is  the  pedigree  of  so  much  importance  as  in  the  dairy  sire.  In 
others  something  can  be  told  of  the  sire's  individual  merit  for  the 
purpose  for  which  he  is  kept.  The  speed  stallion  can  be  tested  on 
the  track,  the  wool  ram  by  examining  his  fleece,  and  all  flesh  pro- 
ducing animals  by  the  development  of  the  high  priced  portions  of 
their  bodies,  while  the  ability  of  the  dairy  bull  to  produce  good 
milkers  must  be  determined  almost  entirely  by  the  record  of  his 
ancestors.  Again,  in  no  class  of  animals  do  we  have  the  opportu- 
nity to  determine  the  individual  merit  of  the  females  from  a  stand- 
point of  production  as  in  dairy  cattle.  An  exact  record  of  the 
yield  for  the  entire  year  may  be  easily  kept  and  the 'animal's  actual 
worth  be  determined  while  still  comparatively  young  and  without 
destroying  the  animal  as  is  necessary  for  the  block  test.  The  old 
saying:  "The  sire  is  half  the  herd,"  does  not  always  express  the 
whole  truth.  In  a  sire  whose  ancestors  have  been  bred  for  dairy 


INDINIDUAL  DIFFERENCES  OF  DAIRY  COWS. 


107 


purposes  only,  these  characteristics  have  become  firmly  fixed  and 
when  crossed  on  cows  of  no  special  breeding-  will  produce  calves 
more  like  the  sire  than  the  dam.  In  this  case  the  sire  counts  for 
more  than  half.  A  dairyman  may  start  with  nothing  but  grade 
cows  of  only  fair  quality  and  by  simply  purchasing1  dairy  sires  of 
excellent  quality  have  a  fine  grade  dairy  herd  in  a  few  years.  Too 
much  stress  cannot  be  laid  on  this  point  and  money  and  time  spent 
in  finding-  an  excellent  sire  will  prove  a  remunerative  investment. 
The  heifer  calves  from  the  best  cows  should  by  all  means  be 
raised.  The  method  that  is  still  quite  larg-ely  practiced  in  some 


COMPOSITE  SAMPLES  OF  MILK  AND  APPARATUS  FOR  TESTING. 


portions  of  the  dairy  sections  of  our  state,  of  disposing-  of  all  the 
calves  reg-ardless.of  how  good  the  individual  or  its  parentag-e,  is  in 
the  end  a  ruinous  practice  to  the  dairy  interests.  The  rang-es  are 
producing-  beef  cattle,  horses,  and  sheep;  but  there  is  no  one  as 
yet  in  the  business  of  producing-  g-ood  working-  cows  of  high  quality 
and  the  supply  must  be  produced  by  the  dairymen  themselves. 
Although  good  cows  can  be  found  in  all  communities  they  are  com- 
paratively scarce  and  the  heifer  calves  from  them  should  certainly 


io8  BULLETIN  NO.  66.  [November, 

be  raised.  Where  the  whole  milk  is  disposed  of  and  no  skim  milk 
is  available  this  is  not  so  easily  done  but  it  will  pay  to  feed  the 
best  calves  whole  milk  for  a  few  days  and  then  gradually  substitute 
some  other  calf  food.  In  this  way,  if  a  little  care  is  exercised,  ex- 
cellent dairy  calves  may  be  raised  on  a  small  quantity  of  milk. 

SUMMARY. 

There  are  vast  differences  in  the  efficiency  and  profit  derived 
from  individual  dairy  cows. 

One  cow  may  produce  more  than  twice  as  much  butter-fat  in  a 
year  as  another  on  exactly  the  same  feed  basis. 

A  good  cow,  well  cared  for,  may  produce  five  times  as  much  as 
the  average  cow  in  the  United  States,  or  nearly  as  much  as  three 
"  profitable"  cows  for  Illinois. 

Nearly  all  dairymen  are  keeping-  a  portion  of  their  herd  at  an 
actual  loss. 

Many  keep  cows  that  pay  only  half  as  much  a  bushel  for  the 
grain  consumed  as  other  cows  in  the  same  herd. 

Excellent  cows  are  obtainable  at  a  reasonable  price  in  nearly 
all  sections  of  the  country.  (There  is  almost  no  dairying-  in  this 
region,  yet  the  cow  Rose  and  several  others  nearly  as  good  were 
purchased  in  this  community  for  fifty  dollars  each.) 

Give  the  cows  a  one-week  test  every  three  months  ;  have  a 
profitable  standard  ;  gradually  raise  it  each  year  and  dispose  of 
any  cows  that  do  not  come  up  to  this. 

Breed  the  best  cows  to  a  dairy  sire  of  excellent  breeding-  and 
individuality  and  raise  the  heifer  calves. 


"fe^l 

•\.  5WT         ~,<7       « 


sn 

1* 


»« 


^ 


'"'  ^H 

'-,     ';j'l-X      v,;--     ^XA. 


rw-  fiaas^zaW  •' 

*k?  MKT2L  ii 


».M-»  ^ 


* 


a»  W     -K-  -  /<<vs 


-r=^,       s 


^o«      W*I  ^>  I«-T  L(  /   ^Q  ^TSr    /  '    >JK?N<X  *S 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


